Category Archives: SR News

The Speaking of Research website provides a wealth of information for the public about why animal research remains an important part of scientific, medical and veterinary discoveries. While our news blog may be most relevant to those involved in the field, the static pages provide information about the animal model, medical developments, regulations, statistics and more. So we believe the more easily the public can find our website, the better for everyone in the field.

So what happens when a member of the public searches for “animal testing” (which, , is searched for around three times as much as “animal research”)?

Eight of nine search results on the first page provide a negative idea of animal research. The last one provides arguments from both sides. No wonder that young people are now opposed to animal research by a 14 percentage point margin.

There is, however, something you can do. Google’s algorithms mean that websites that are linked to by .edu and .gov websites will be more trusted and be pushed further up the search results. See more on the video below:

We need you to get www.speakingofresearch.com added to your University department website (or Government website if you are that position). So please send an email to your department website editor (and convince friends in other life science departments to do likewise) to ask them to add links to pro-research organisations on an appropriate page. Many of you will have direct control over sections of your department’s page, so please take a few seconds to add the middle section of the letter below.

Dear Webmaster

Please can you add the following paragraph to our departmental website, on our page about animal research here: <insert url>

For more information about the role of animals in research we recommend the following website:

http://www.speakingofresearch.com – Speaking of Research: Providing accurate information about the important role of animal experiments in medical and veterinary research.

Kind Regards

<insert name>

Why not help a few key organisations by asking them to add more than one website, such as:

Speaking of Research has considerable concerns about the wealth of information that has been removed from the USDA website in the last week. The USDA has removed access to an online database that allowed the public to easily obtain documents involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).This information includes the annual reports showing the number of animals used in research each year, and the animal welfare reports that are produced. [Direct links to annual reports were broken, but the reports still exist on the – Ed.]

According to , tens of thousands of reports have been removed, relating to around 1200 research labs and 6500 non-research facilities that are registered or licensed by the USDA. A from the USDA says:

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information

No doubt many will see some irony in starting a statement about the removal of information with “Based on our commitment to being transparent”. That said, it is not yet clear if reports are being removed permanently or simply temporarily removed until they have been assessed for privacy issues. Though the previously public information will still be available through FOIA requests, the statement concludes by saying “If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website”.

It is not just animal rights groups who have expressed concern. Matthew Bailey, President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, :

“I would certainly agree that protection of personal information is of utmost importance, especially given the rich history of targeting the individuals involved in animal research. However, this change also makes it more time consuming, although not impossible, for organizations like FBR to analyze trends in animal use in research.”

Speaking of Research also has concerns. We believe the availability of data can foster an environment of openness and transparency about animal research. When information is hidden, particularly where it was once available, the public will naturally wonder why many stakeholders have cause for concern: the public wonders what is being hidden and why, and researchers must devote even more resources to combatting the public perception that they are not transparent.

Speaking of Research uses the type of information that was available to help explain the realities of animal research to the public and media.

The USDA’s decision is also out of step with the direction of travel of many other countries. Approximately one month ago, after urgings from Speaking of Research, the EU website providing links to the annual statistical reports on animal research of member countries.

In our own commitment to openness, Speaking of Research has uploaded the Annual Reports of the USDA’s animal research to its website. They are available on our US Statistics page, or can be found below. We will be looking at what other information we can practically add in coming weeks.

Major scientific awards in 2016 showed the important role of animal models. The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine celebrated Dr Yoshinori Ohsumi’s work on yeast and mice, which helped him uncover the “mechanisms of autophagy”. A few weeks earlier the Lasker Awards highlighted the work in numerous animal models including frogs, rabbits and primates, in the discovery of how cells sense and respond to changes in oxygen levels, and their work in understanding and treating Hepatitis C. Check back later this year to see what the 2017 Nobels and Laskers show about the need for animal models.

2016 showed a number of animal research breakthroughs (a few of which Speaking of Research even wrote articles about). In February studies showed that the HPV vaccine, developed using rabbits, mice and primates, had helped reduce infections of HPV (which can cause cervical cancer) by over 60%. April produced news about how optogenetics could bring about a number of drug-free treatments. This news was based on studies in mice and fish. In August, research on sheep by Australian and American researchers helped to create a new device for recording electrical signals inside the brain – hopefully reducing the need for invasive surgery in some situations. Work on lambs by Dr Robert Tranquillo, at the University of Minnesota, could help create synthetic blood vessels and heart valves that grow as the patient does. In October, Dr Stuart Baker, at Newcastle University, described his work with humans and primates to drive forward a new technology aimed at helping stroke patients recover (see also what he wrote about the importance of animal research).

Research on primates also came into the spotlight during 2016, causing many scientists to stand together in defence of their use. In February, Speaking of Research wrote a letter to the Australian Senate Committee on Environmental Protection about a proposed bill to ban the import of primates for biomedical research. After the New York Times an article by animal research critic, Dr John Gluck, 90 scientists signed onto a response about the moral imperative for responsible animal research. Nine scientific organisations produced a white paper highlighting the importance of non-human primates in research. Soon after, hundreds of primate researchers and neuroscientists, including Nobel Prize Laureates and Lasker Award winners signed a letter defending the important role of primates to medical science.

A segment of the letter printed in the Guardian

Moving to great apes, there was a continued dialogue on Speaking of Research about the future of the NIH’s retired research chimpanzees. Here is a selection of posts on the issue:

Speaking of debunking nonsense, February marked the 10 year anniversary of the Pro-Test movement which challenged the misinformation of animal rights groups in Oxford and defended the building of the new Oxford Biomedical Facility.

Our request for new committee members has brought a large amount of interest, so expect some new and interesting perspectives. The first of these, by new committee member Christine Archer, explains how she became a veterinary technician working with aquatic animals and reptiles. We are still interested in hearing from potential new members, particularly those who work in science communications at research institutions.

During their 2016 annual meeting in San Diego, Society for Neuroscience (SfN) held a two-hour session dedicated to public outreach concerning animals in research. The panelists offered different perspectives on communication about essential animal research for the public. The session opened with remarks by the chair of the SFN’s , Dr. Mar Sanchez, who stated the importance of the role of scientists in raising awareness about animal research. Sanchez encouraged the audience to immediately by reaching out to their elected officials.

The first panelist, Kirk Leech, is the Executive Director for the . Leech overviewed the current state of opinion about animal research and shared how the UK and other European countries are helping to be more transparent.

. says it is a risk to not talk about .. Everyone must find a way to communicate about their work

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

He pointed out that although physical attacks by activists have decreased, their tactics have become more complex and influential. He said that “it is essential to engage with the public, media and policymakers about animal research.” Aim of the panel was to explain how for example in Spain, Belgium and the UK we have sought to use Institutional Openness, – private and public research agreeing to certain principles about how they will seek to improve public understanding of animal research. If the voices of the research community are not heard, the conversation about animal research will continue to be driven by anti-animal research rhetoric.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Click to Enlarge

, professor of psychology at , began by insisting that today’s activists remain extreme and sometimes abusive, even though they are legal. He noted that although they are not bombing cars and breaking into labs, they still are making a very real impact on the scientists they target through campaigns that involve personal targeting and harassment. After overviewing the players in current activist campaigns, and their tactics, he pointed out the results of their activities. These included researchers ending controversial projects, graduate students pursuing alternative pathways, funding not being applied for or lost, and the endless waste of resources being spent on having to respond to frivolous activist campaigns. -fake id scanJentsch shared his perspective through the lens of a researcher about engaging with the public about work with animals in research and working with your institutions, scientific societies and advocacy groups to implement a proactive campaign.

.: researchers must insist support from their institutions

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

He says that, “Researchers can, and should, be proactive and plan for public engagement about their work.” He recommends that the scientific community proactively navigate this reality by planning, finding their own voices, controlling the message, and demanding specific forms of institutional support. He points to examples like as an excellent example of transparent and effective advocacy. Additional advice includes preparing in advance for negative criticisms, participating in public communications through , letters, and websites, and forming a group of like-minded individuals at your institution to encourage public statements and protection for researchers. He closed by sharing a thanking the research community for its research and advocacy.

The next panelist, Director of the highlighted the outstanding care that nonhuman primates at the seven in the US receive, as well as the significant contributions non-human primates have made in the advances of such diseases as HIV/AIDS, polio, Ebola, and Parkinson’s disease. Morrison stressed that, “hiding doesn’t work.” He encouraged the development of strong proactive messages that emphasize the connection to human health and to get this message out as often possible. Some venues for message distribution include giving tours and presentations, using the website and social media, developing press releases, and engaging with all partners. He says, “engage your press office and publicize science as often as possible.” Morrison shared a cohesive message being shared by the seven NPRCs which includes, “The National Primate Research Centers are a national network of dedicated teams fighting diseases from Alzheimer’s to Zika and improving human health and lives worldwide.” This cohesiveness gives strength to their communications about essential research with non-human primates.

has provided a way to advance and that would not otherwise have been possible

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

Morrison then shared tips on engaging with several stakeholders: the home institution, NIH and the scientific community, the public, policymakers, and employees. Tips included:

1) Home Institution:

Engage the highest level of leadership in a social setting to present scientific discoveries and their importance to human health and the financial impact of research for the institution.

Maintain open and strong communication with NIH Program Officers and other officials

Provide expertise and participate in NIH Workshops

Educate the scientific community on animal research

Sponsor conferences

Work with Professional Societies and their programs on animal research

Provide access to expertise for scientific colleagues

3) The public:

Open your doors by giving tours

Distribute material for lay audience through website, social media, and local media

Go into the community and provide presentations

4) Policymakers:

Provide invitations for tours to federal and state government officials, academic leaders, leaders of Pharma and Biotech

Visit Capitol Hill

Engage with NIH and other federal agencies

Provide material on animal research

5) Employees:

Implement an internal communications program about animal research at your institution

Communicate your vision, purpose, core values, key messages to connect the work with animals with the overall institutional goals

Create an advocacy program so employees can be advocates for animal research

Morrison emphasized, “In all of these interactions, emphasize the power of animal research to impact human health.” His talk ended by showing a and the medical advancement that gives him the ability to function normally. Without the deep brain stimulation developed through the nonhuman primate model, this man could not even hold a pencil.

The final panelist, , Associate Director for Science Policy and Director of the Office of Science Policy,, began her talk with an overview of NIH and related agencies. She also explained NIH’s relationship with Congress and the fact that since they are a public agency, paid for by all taxpayers, they represent the view of the entire public, including those that may oppose animal research. This representation of all members of the public is what results in things like the September 7th workshop to review its ethical policies and processes for the nonhuman primate research model. She assured the audience that Dr. Francis Collins supports their work with animals.

. says our society has decided is ethical

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

The in support of animal research and will continue to support the scientific community, as well as their public stakeholders. NIH also offers . Wolinetz ended her talk by encouraging scientists to engage with the public and tie their work with the human condition. The session concluded with a Q &A session from the participants. These included:

“How do I make the case for basic research?”

A good perspective on basic research from MIT

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

“What support is there for ordinary scientists in communicating about animal research?”

Answer: Sfn can connect you with other members. Individual institutions need to step up in support

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

“Are K-12 teachers being engaged?”

Answer: Sfn has some initiatives to engage teachers. Check them out here

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

Answer 2:Engagement with K-12 about needs to happen by individuals, institutions, and science organizations

— AR Consortium (@AR_Consortium)

Discussions about hosting another panel next year are underway. Ideas for topics to include can be emailed to the Chair of SfN’s Animal Research Committee, Mar Sanchez, mmsanch@emory.edu.

Speaking of Research is a group of like-minded researchers and science communicators. We have flourished over the last 8.5 years thanks to the hard work of a committee that has come together to help each other, as well as fellow researchers and institutions. Despite having a budget of about $200/year, we have come together to build one of the biggest resources about animal research on the internet. We believe that openness about animal research is the best way to win over public and policymakers. But, we need your help to achieve this.

The SR committee is an ever-changing group of around 20 people who are motivated to make a change in the way we talk about animal research. The committee is made up of people from across North America and Europe, but we would also welcome people from further afield to help us understand the animal research environment in other countries.

Scientists who use animals in their research – be it fruit flies, mice or monkeys. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Masters student or a tenured professor, your support is valued.

Veterinarians who work within animal research facilities.

Animal care technicians who work to look after animals in laboratories.

Science communicators, particularly those who do media relations or public engagement for an institution conducting animal research or relevant society.

What does the committee do?

Writing – this is one of the key jobs of our central committee – ensuring that there is new material on the website (and updating existing pages). People write about their own research, research in the news, debunking misinformation by activists, responding to policy changes and much more. Not a great writer? Some of our best articles are produced by guest authors, but we still need to be the ones to find those people.

Social Media – we need people to help put science news on , and other social media channels.

Sharing news and information-fake id scan. Seen some amazing new medical breakthrough? Information about animal activism?

Networking – From individuals and institutions wanting to become more actively involved in animal research outreach, to those targeted by activism, the SR committee works to support scientists and institutions worldwide.

Media work – We are often required to give comments to journalists, or occasionally appear on radio and TV. Having numerous people prepared to step up to the plate is always useful. We have worked with committee members to train them in talking to the media. We also put our press releases and produce briefing materials for journalists.

Conferences – Speaking of Research members have often spoken about animal research outreach at conferences including Society for Neuroscience and AALAS.

SR member talking about the importance of openness on the BBC.

How can I join the committee?

Contact us! We’d love to hear from you, even if you just have some questions. We ask new members to write an article for the website to show their interest in explaining animal research (we can help advise on topics, as well as provide support in editing and proofing any drafts).

What am I expected to do on the committee?

We do understand that our careers often mean there are periods where we are unable to help, but hope you find some time to contribute in some manner to Speaking of Research’s goals.

Email List – the committee communicates through an email list. While we don’t expect everyone to reply to every email, we do ask that people contribute their knowledge or support occasionally.

Blog – We ask every committee member to contribute one article every four months (or to find a colleague who might contribute a guest post). This ensures we have a minimum amount of news on the website (thankfully, some committee members contribute much more). Articles tend to be 400-1500 words, but we are very flexible.

Contribute – We hope committee members find other ways of contributing. Some people keep an eye out for new id buddy, some people look out for institutional animal research statements, and some people help post on social media. Whatever you can do, we welcome the help.

While all our committee are volunteers, we still require a small amount of funding to keep our website going and carry out small outreach activities (we have produced posters for conferences and promoted articles on social media). Donating just €10/£10/$10 is a huge help to our efforts in explaining the important role of animals in medical and veterinary research.

If you are one of the 30,000 or so neuroscientists attending the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) in San Diego that starts this weekend, then make sure you watch this session on engaging institutions about animal research.

Animals in Research Panel (SfN; Tues, Nov 15, 10am-Noon, CC Room 10):

“”

Description: Worldwide, researchers are engaging the public to increase the understanding and need for animals in research. However, scientists need research institutions to facilitate greater openness about animal research conducted on campus and to reject the fear of attracting negative attention. This panel will discuss the proven benefits of positive institutional public communication and openness, as well as strategies to engage our institutions to publicly support animal research.

In the first 3 parts of this series, I described my experiences at Capitol Hill Day, my interview with the National Association for Biomedical Research, and my interview with Rep. John Delaney (D-MD, 6). In this instalment of the series, I interview Lisa Kaeser, J.D., the Director of for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Here, she answers questions regarding her role in the legislative process, focusing in particular on science policy, and the ways in which NIH as an institution – and individual scientists – can become involved.

According to Kaeser, one of the major ways scientists funded by the NICHD, and other institutes within NIH, can become involved is by regularly engaging with their institute’s Office of Legislation and Public Policy about recent scientific discoveries, advances in the field, and especially the rigorous methods involved. This interaction helps these offices to“get it right” when giving briefings to policymakers in Congress.

What role(s) do you take in the legislative process surrounding science policy?

Our office is named the Office of Legislative and Public Policy to address the nexus between science and public policy. Helping to explain scientific advances and the scientific process to policymakers means that we must have a broad understanding of the wide range of science conducted and supported by NICHD. This often takes the form of briefings on Capitol Hill and responding to letters and other inquiries. Of course, I work closely with our scientists to make sure I’m getting it right. Conversely, policymakers in Congress — who must answer to their constituents — offer legislative proposals that may have a helpful, harmful, or benign effect on the science we fund. It’s up to our office to interpret those proposals and, if asked, provide technical assistance on what their impact might be on NICHD’s work.

How does your office work to keep legislators informed of science topics and the latest scientific findings to inform policy?

NICHD has a terrific Office of Communications that provides a huge amount of information on , including press releases on new scientific findings and “spotlights” that highlight a researcher or scientific topic area. NICHD also is fortunate to work with a wide variety of constituency organizations that support some aspect of our research. These range from large professional medical societies, to organizations representing scientific disciplines, diseases or condition-specific groups, and are collectively known as the “Friends of NICHD.” These organizations and their members are effective advocates for science, so it’s critical that we keep them informed about recent advances and get their input on research priorities. For example, NICHD has a monthly newsletter that pulls together the most recent scientific highlights, which we send to all of these groups to help them describe NICHD’s work on Capitol Hill. In addition, the groups are helpful in sponsoring and arranging for congressional briefings, where our scientific staff are asked to speak about research in their fields of expertise.

What particular steps in the legislative process does NIH become involved in (and, is there an example of science policy that NIH has been involved in that you could provide)?

Responding to congressional requests/inquiries: everything from science policy (e.g., stem cell research, research with animals), an update on the latest research developments (e.g., autism), to the status of a grant application in their state or district.

Requests for briefings: scientific presentations must be tailored to a lay audience.

Requests for technical assistance on proposed legislation: NICHD may not take a “position” on legislation unless the Administration has taken a position. So comments must be limited to what effects the proposed legislative language might have on the research enterprise. For example, legislation that would require NICHD to report back to Congress on progress being made in a specific area might not be especially onerous, whereas legislation that would require establishment of a large research resource (but without additional funding) might not only be redundant with current research efforts, but force difficult funding decisions for the Institute.

Preparing for hearings and briefings: The NIH Director is asked to appear before both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees each year. Staff of the 27 NIH Institutes and Centers contribute to a large database of scientific issue briefs that he uses to prepare for the multitude of questions that may be posed by the committees’ members. In addition, each Institute Director may submit a statement for the hearing record that highlights recent research advances and priorities.

In which steps of the process can scientists effectively engage and become involved?

The first step is to become informed about the process, which is what the program, and others like it, do so effectively. While scientists who are Federal employees may not lobby using government time or resources, they are free to speak or write to policymakers on their own time without using their government titles. Non-government scientists are not restricted from working with policymakers, including writing, meetings, or even tours of their labs; they would probably want to work with their home institutions in arranging these visits. And most of the professional societies are deeply engaged in this process, so being an active member of these groups is an excellent way to make your voice heard.

Dr Amanda M. Dettmer

The views and opinions here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the NIH.